One disturbing fact the Lord brought to my attention concerning apologetics is that the masoretic text is from **antichrist **Jews who were editing the Scriptures for hundreds of years, and yet most English Bibles are based off the masoretic instead of the Septuagint.
Which text is that of Christ and his apostles?
The LXX.
**Not the Masoretic.
**
So why the switch?
Tell my why that might be!
I’m guessing its because the academic crowds and publishers are funded by the unbelieving Jews.
“…he makes grand statements about how much the Jews corrupted the OT, but provides literally not a single example of a corruption of the OT in the Masoretic text.“
https://evidenceforchristianity.org/what-is-masoretic-hebrew-is-the-mt-more-reliable-than-the-dss/
Now, I read both from the Septuagint and the Masoretic translations. I like to be well-rounded in my theology and understanding of the Bible. But there is little to no evidence of intentional corruption by the Masoretes. Rather, what we do see is a fairly reliable transmission of text from what we do know within the findings at Qumran.
Correction: most English Bibles that we read today have the Old Testament translated from the Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia (which is planned to be updated really soon this year into the 5th edition), a critical text of the Old Testament scriptures. It is based on a Masoretic-type text and has continued to be published in the style, but has since been modified as we discover more available Old Testament manuscripts, and the Dead Sea Scrolls of course play a huge role, as well as information from the Septuagint.
The Septuagint wasn’t the only Greek translation available to during the time of Jesus and his direct disciples, although evidently it was the most popular. But pretty sure when Jesus went to the synagogue in his hometown and quoted from Isaiah, he wasn’t reading a Greek text, but a Hebrew scroll.
The authors used LXX because it was just more familiar to more people. But then many of Paul’s personal epistles include more paraphrases of the OT than a quotation from a translation. This is probably because the Jewish authors, including Paul who was probably more fluent in Greek, other than those who was probably more Hellenized, didn’t really use the Greek translation but rely on the Hebrew text, except when collaborating, like Romans and Corinthians, penned by a Greek scribe.
It also wasn’t a switch from the time of Jesus and now. Since the destruction of the second temple and Council of Jamnia and further dispersion of the Jewish people, traditions also differed, not only in how they conducted their religious duties, but also in how they copy the Scriptures. There were a couple of textual traditions of the Tanakh, not just the Tiberian Masoretes, and it just so happened that their texts became more popular.
Why don’t you learn how Messianic Jews view scriptures.
And yet the LXX stems from the same Jewish Scholarship as the Masoeites.
Since these discussions tend to devolve into fruitlesst theoretical statements, I suggest we start plugging real scholarship into the mix:
Did God tell you that or man?
NOT LIKELY.
You attitude me that. Nor foes it equate what what I have read in the past.
You notice don’t you that Jesus had a low opion of Jewish scholarship in general. He is often show quoting from the LXX but not always
“Many people believe that the ancient Hebrew text of Scripture was divinely preserved for many centuries, and was ultimately recorded in what we now call the “Masoretic Text”. But what did the Masoretes themselves believe? Did they believe they were perfectly preserving the ancient text? Did they even think they had received a perfect text to begin with?
History says “no” . . .
Scribal emendations – Tikkune Soferim
Early rabbinic sources, from around 200 CE, mention several passages of Scripture in which the conclusion is inevitable that the ancient reading must have differed from that of the present text. . . . Rabbi Simon ben Pazzi (3rd century) calls these readings “emendations of the Scribes” (tikkune Soferim; Midrash Genesis Rabbah xlix. 7), assuming that the Scribes actually made the changes. This view was adopted by the later Midrash and by the majority of Masoretes.
In other words, the Masorites themselves felt they had received a partly corrupted text. “
an example of the differences … from the link above
Here is an extensive list of the differences between the Masoretic and the Septuagint, and their New Testament quotes.
This is where the dead sea scrolls comes in… They date older than the masoretic text and especially the infamous Isaiah scroll, they were practically identical with 1 word in question besides some spelling mistakes… They were from the essenes, not masorites and tradition has it that John the baptist was once an essene. Plus, the common person had the septuigent, as greek was one of the main languages of the day, but it can be safely assumed that in the synagogues they would have the torah in hebrew as per tradition.
Lloyd Acree, Do you not believe this is somewhat anti-Semitic?
[…] One disturbing fact the Lord brought to my attention concerning… […]
Comments